Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
Philip wrote:
1. Is at least 2 sec faster than N64 Super Mario 64 (JPN) "1 Key" in 04:21.3 by Tyler Kehne, MKDasher, sonicpacker, Snark, SilentSlayers, Gaehne D, Eru, ToT, Plush & sm64expert (“SM642016”)
2. Is accepted+published by TAS videos in the same category as SM642016 and obsoletes SM642016.
I'm a bit confused (which may be due, in part, to lack of knowledge on the intricacies of TASing SM64); and I have a question for clarification.
Specifically, why 2 seconds?
Is there a particular reason to speculate that at least 2 seconds can be removed from the current publication, or is that an arbitrary value you chose simply hoping to push others to pursue this bounty?
I'm all for improving existing publications; but if this is an arbitrary value, it seems odd to me. If your goal is simply improving the publication, then why not allow a 1.5 second improvement (or 1 second, or even .5 seconds).
If there is a particular reason you believe a minimum of 2 seconds can be achieved, then I see no problem with that number.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
EZGames69 wrote:
...I only say this because I believe TASing should be more than simply optimizations in speedruns. I believe it should be about expressing super human play, and that includes crazy playarounds you see in some older Battletoads TASes.
Playarounds don't necessarily need to be present for a TAS to be considered Superhuman play (or even to be considered entertaining).
While some viewers may prefer them (and find movies that lack playaround, less entertaining); other viewers can appreciate TASes that lack playaround just as much as (if not more than) a TAS that includes it.
There's nothing wrong with simply optimizing a speedrun.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
feos and I had some back and forth discussion on Discord regarding our respective perspectives and and the purpose of the vault, the following are as concise of a summary as I can provide:
feos: by your logic "as long as it's done optimally, no matter how trivial it is, it must be archived even for such games!!!!!!!"
The following is my response to that summation.
Me:This is close to how I feel, but not exactly.
I'm suggesting that the TASes of games that are not trivial to play casually deserve a place of recognition on our site as examples demonstrating what TASing can do compared to humans (i.e. 'superhuman') regardless of how trivial it is to make that TAS. I have no desire to have TASes of trivial-to-play games like Desert Bus or Color a Dinosaur on the site.
I see 3 levels of triviality. Trivial to play. Triviality of TAS Production. Triviality of resulting video.
feos:I mean you'd be arguing for those types of games I quoted just as well
(Here he was referenceing games such as Dragon's Lair, choose your own adventure stories, color a dionsaur, etc.)
Here's my response which hopefully provides more insight to everyone on why I feel some trivial-to-TAS games which are not trivial-to-play games deserve a place of publication in the Vault.
I can see where someone could use my basic perspective to try and argue for Dragon's Lair or a 'choose an adventure' type game, but the counter argument in many if not most of those cases would be that there's no in-game benefit/value derived by optimizing the input time.
Even in casual play, pressing a direction in Dragon's Lair on the first possible frame vs the last possible frame doesn't change the gameplay or progress; all obstacles to the predefined game progress remain the same regardless of when (in the appropriate time window) that direction is pressed. Time optimization is only affected by the frame delay within that window when the button is actually pressed (a direction press 5 frames later than the earliest possible frame adds exactly 5 frames to the overall time of the run). This isn't the case for games like Duck Hunt.
From a casual play perspective in Duck Hunt, the frame on which a duck is shot does result in changes to gameplay action and therefore adds potential for an in-game benefit/value of time optimization. If not shot immediately, the duck will fly around based on RNG; meaning the gun would need repositioned/aimed. Also the randomized position that the duck flies to before it's shot determines the fall distance and thus introduce another factor in time optimization beyond simply how much time it took the player to pull the trigger; a duck shot higher on the screen falls a further distance and costs extra time beyond the number of frames the player delayed before the shot (shooting 5 frames later than the earliest possible frame may result in greater than a 5 frame delay on the overall run). This means that the both aiming time and firing frame of the gun are actions that impact time optimization from a in-game benefit/value standpoint. This potential in-game variation due to game-play choices provides the in-game benefit/value of optimization: 'Shooting a duck lower on the screen, yields waiting less time before the next duck releases.'
Yes it's trivial to make the Duck Hunt TAS itself because of the tools available. Shots can be made to occur on the first possible frame with the gun pointed in the right place. It's not hard to optimize. But the in-game benefit/value optimization is still present This is the point in optimizing 1-duck mode in Duck Hunt; killing the ducks as quickly as possible to minimize fall distance. It just so happens that it's easy to do this optimization in a TAS environment.
The grey area with the in-game benefit argument is games like Deja Vu or Shadowgate. Speed of input doesn't necessarily affect the gameplay result or create in-game changes. However, those games still at least have the argument of cursor movement optimization beyond general menuing (where Dragon's Lair, choose an adventure, and such games do not even have this optimization challenge).
To put it shortly, there is a reason to optimize the shot frame in Duck Hunt beyond it was the first possible frame to do so.
This reason is the reason the game is not trivial and a speed record of it has value.
EDIT: I want our site to offer even more comprehensive picture of how TASing is superior to human play, but the current approach to triviality prevents some obvious superhuman TASes from being published.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
Memory wrote:
I've personally felt conflicted in the past about this rule and its precise necessity. I believe that in an ideal world we would want to publish every game. However, that isn't practical. We have judges and publishers that are required to move the process along, so there is a need to limit what gets sent our way. From that, one of the most obvious subsets to limit is movies that have little effort put into them.
Additionally, a trivial record isn't just meaningless in the sense that there can be no competition. It is meaningless in that who set the record and therefore authorship doesn't matter. Anybody can create the inputs for a trivial movie.
Let's take Barney's Hide & Seek for an example. If left alone, the game will actually play and complete itself. The only required input to beat it is Power On.
Who came up with the TAS for that? The first person to submit? They didn't exactly come up with the inputs, power on is in the emulator by default. The emulator? The first person to ever play the game? The creators of the game?
When a movie requires effort to make, who made the movie becomes much simpler.
If one were to accept trivial records in order to merely document the fastest possible time, one would need to remove authorship or else one would run into a plethora of issues regarding attribution. This site is obviously not set up for that, nor do I know if anybody really wants that at this given time.
Games like Barny are trivial-to-play casually, thus TASing isn't even necessary. Other games like Duck Hunt aren't trivial to play (more on this later); and while the act of making the TAS may be trivial, the resulting video still demonstrates superhuman TAS ability.
A game being trivial-to-make, doesn't mean that effort hasn't been exerted in creation of the TAS. This is part of why I have previously emphasized that 'trivial to play casually' and 'trivial to make a TAS' aren't equivalent.
Implementation?
For such trivial-to-make TASes that would still demonstrate super-human ability, would it be impossible to publish them without authorship attribution? Or simply have authorship be attributed to "Many Tasers." Or even "Trivial to TAS"?
With any of those options, no one person has to be identified as the TAS author for attribution reasons. This would eliminate any player points comparison/headache that would result from any one member claiming they were first or that they should get the points for authorship.
The staff could even create a member with the name "Trivial to TAS" for such a purpose. Then when a trivial to TAS game is submitted, the game can be published under this authorship regardless of who actually made the submission. A note could be placed in the judgement notes describing this publication action. This would allow for publication of non-trivial-to-play superhuman runs even if they are trivial-to-make.
Regarding productivity and practicality: if a superhuman TAS is judged to have such simple optimization that it's deemed trivial-to-make, then judgement shouldn't be that hard on whether it's optimized or not (and since we're talking about Vault, there's not reason to consider entertainment). Judgments would essentially be mere formality and shouldn't require much effort on the judge's part.
I've had some private discussion with feos on discord and will be posting some of the thoughts from that discussion here in a moment in a separate post..
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
I realize that I'm challenging the status quo and the operating opinion of some (possibly many) in the community. Please don't read any of the following as anger, it's not intended that way.
feos wrote:
Distinction between trivial games and trivial movies is crucial and resolves your questions. If the game in its nature is trivial to TAS, any TAS of it is rejected, because it won't be a meaningful tool-assisted speedrun record. But if the game is complicated and affords serious TAS competition, its movies are accepted, even if human record matches a TAS, as long as there's nothing more to improve with the current knowledge.
You're debating from a perspective that appears to suggest that our site is primarily about competition. You're suggesting that a TAS of any game is meaningless simply because the act of obtaining the optimal method to win is obvious and easy to produce in TAS form and thus wouldn't have room for challenge by another TASer.
Is that all we care about as a site? Do we only care about TASing games that could, in theory, yield a frame-war? Are all other games that can't produce this potential for challenge really meaningless, or is that an arbitrary distinction we have created for some esoteric reason in hopes to spur such challenges?
As I understand things: In it's origin, the site was a showcase of TAS runs that were deemed entertaining to watch, not as a place to hold competition for who could TAS best. Then the Vault was added to archive the fastest known runs of games regardless of whether they were entertaining or not. In other words, the Vault was added to present the best that can be accomplished from a speed perspective even if it was dull to watch.
While this may have allowed opportunity for more competitive back and forth in the community, the results of the Vault TASes being published remained the same....presenting the fastest (known) possible outcome. Then the vault was further expanded to include 100% runs and max score TASes that still were required to do those two things in the fastest possible time, but that's kinda beside the point of my arguments.
Why then are we against presenting the fastest run that can be accomplished from a speed perspective simply because the available tools make it easy to present that particular result and there's no foreseeable way for someone to challenge that known best result?
Why claim that a tool-assisted speedrun record is not meaningful just because it's was easy to accomplish using the available tools?
I realize that competition/challenge can and does happen here, but I've never taken anything on our site to suggest that the purpose of our existence was to only present things that can breed competitive challenge.
Why is one game deemed less meaningful to TAS simply because it's easier to actually create the TAS than it would be for another game?
How much meaning/value any art form holds is not determined by the creators/curators, it's determined by the viewer/consumer.
There's a lot of art in the world that I personally feel is worth less than the individual media components it's created with, yet others would be willing to pay millions of dollars to acquire.
What I or any particular community member may see as a worthless/trash TAS, another viewer may see as one of the most amazing TASes ever created.
Acceptability of TASes that would be archived in the Vault shouldn't be judged based on some undefinable potential meaning that someone may or may not ascribe to the resulting video. Nor should it be determined on how difficult they were or weren't to create. Acceptability should simply be based on if it's the fastest known optimal TAS run (given current knowledge of the game).
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
moozooh wrote:
When making a new (i.e. first-generation) TAS, it has to do better than what humans are doing at that time. Otherwise there is no point bothering with it when you can just watch the unassisted run and get the same experience.
...
Mandating that an improvement outperforms a human run across the board would have been impractical for cases where there are no further improvements to be found with existing knowledge. Enforcing such a rule would make some improvements unpublishable and have us stuck with even worse movies.
(rhetorically) So if a TAS already exists as published and humans manage to match it, that's ok; but if the best a TASer can do is to only match the absolute best human out there, it's not ok just because in the grand spectrum of time a human has already achieved that performance once? (end rhetorical question)
It doesn't make sense to hold a 1st generation run to higher standard than improvement runs simply because there happens to be 1 or a small handful of humans who have managed to attain the best possible performance at some point in time prior to the game being first TASed. If the majority of humans can match that performance, then it's a different story: the game is trivial and the restriction is valid.
Assuming that a game isn't trivial for most humans to play, the best possible TAS of that game based on known information is still the best possible result and deserves to be documented on the site as such.
Sure, if a TAS and the best human run are equivalent, someone could absolutely go watch the best human run instead of the TAS. But the fact that someone can see an equivalent performance elsewhere doesn't restrict TAS acceptance otherwise. If there's a TAS video of a game on YouTube or NicoVideo that achieves the best possible performance but that TAS was never submitted to our site, we'd accept a submission from a different author even if it only matched that other run for time. So why does it matter if the other run being compared to was human instead of someone else's TAS? If a submission in question matches the best known existing time (regardless of whether a human or TAS made the run), it should be acceptable. We'd never reject a submission solely because another TAS (which isn't published on the site ) is just as good as the submission in question.
People don't only watch our videos to see only what human's CAN'T do...some (probably quite a few casual watchers) watch to see what's the best that CAN be done. They don't care if a human can match it or not, they are simply trying to see what's the best possible (which, in-theory, is a key part of what TASing is all about).
The above quote specifically points out the dichotomy. In one case, you're arguing that updates to an already published TAS are allowed to be only as good as the best humans, but new TASes aren't allowed to be only as good than the absolute best humans.
We need to stop considering Vault runs from an "experience" standpoint. Vault is supposed to be a place that doesn't consider entertainment value. Thus, whether or not someone can obtain the same experience watching a run equivalent to a vault publication elsewhere is a moot point. The vault is effectively an archive for the fastest completions (or maximum score runs), it's not about the experience.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
The current rules for a vault run say
The game-play needs to standout from non-assisted play, and must not be seen as trivial. Note that a game is considered trivial until proven otherwise. If getting perfect times everywhere is not challenging, such a game is considered trivial. If later a technique is found that makes TASing it challenging, that game becomes acceptable
The current rules for beating existing records say
If your tool-assisted movie is slower than the non-tool-assisted world record for the same game, aiming for the same goals, your movie will be rejected.
Given the recent change from "not faster than" to "slower than" for speed rules; these two criteria are now somewhat in conflict.
One criterion (in the rules on triviality) essentially says a run must stand out from human play to be acceptable, while the other criterion (in the rules on speed) essentially says a run simply can't be slower than human play to be acceptable.
This prompted a question in my mind: How do we define a game's triviality?
In my opinion, a game's triviality should be based on the ability of humans to present a perfect (or near perfect) performance, not how challenging it is to make a TAS of that perfect performance...especially when acceptability for Vault is in question.
If the majority of humans can easily beat a game unassisted with perfect or near perfect performance, a game can be argued to be inherently trivial (Desert Bus).
Duck Hunt is a good example of the triviality dilemma.
TASing a perfect time performance in 1-Duck mode is extremely easy to do as it's simply a matter of watching a timer and duck location in RAM then firing on the first possible frame. However, it'd be nigh impossible for a human to accomplish this same feat.
While it doesn't make a very interesting TAS to watch, it would still meet all other criteria for acceptance into Vault as the fastest completion of a game. On a side note, it's also obviously superhuman.Side note #2: I don't believe that a max score run would be trivial as the score per duck can vary (even in 1-Duck mode IIRC) and would require some RNG manipulation to accomplish.
Yet, this mode of the game is currently prohibited from vault based on triviality of how difficult it is to make the TAS.
As vault is meant to be the location of fastest known/possible TASes of games (when entertainment isn't considered), what argument is there to restricting games simply because the act of making the TAS is extremely easy?
Even when a game is extremely easy to TAS perfectly; if it isn't also that easy casually, it's not inherently a trivial game.
TL:DR
How challenging it is to actually make the TAS of a game shouldn't be the determining factor on whether or not a particular game is deemed trivial; triviality should instead be based on how simple the game is to play casually.
Should we modify the Vault rules in the following ways?
1) Eliminate the concept that game-play must visually stand out from human play For Moons, this requirement could be maintained.
2) Clearly define how triviality is determined
The point of our site is to publish impressive movies from a perspective of entertainment (moons/stars), speed only (vault), or both.
Therefore, I simply don't see any value or purpose in banning a game from publication(especially when a TAS shows obvious perfection or superhuman play) simply because the creation of the TAS was itself an easy (or easily repeatable) process.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
p4wn3r wrote:
OK, soft question now. Asking here because at another place I post about math there was some heated discussion about this and I want to know what people think.
Are -2, -3, -5, -7, ..., prime numbers?
Every definition I've ever read of prime numbers says a prime must be positive with itself (X) and 1 as the only divisors.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
Tichnickle,
In less than 10 minutes of testing, I was also able to beat you on the first 3 enemies of the game. I'm not sure if it's as fast as Spike's, but it's close. (My scream input does occur on frame 1737 which appears the same a Spike's image above, but I'm not sure if the video he shared is from that particular input).
Both Spike and I attack the left two enemies first. I believe this yields a faster time due to death animation timing with the game only having to process 1 enemy on the 2nd scream...but that's speculation and I can't (currently) prove it.
Doing it this way requires walking right further before doing the first scream, hence the attack not happening until frame 1737.
I can't comment on the glider as I haven't tested that far (nor am I particularly interested in doing so).
Another question: I know you've at least tested one other character; but have you tested ALL the other characters to confirm that this is indeed the best character to use for the game?
TASing is not about just doing something fast and quickly submitting.
It requires doing something, then doing something else, then something else, then something else, and so on...until you've tested every possibility you can imagine to see which is actually fastest. It's a time-consuming process and not something that typically occurs in a short span of time. I'm not trying to discourage you...simply trying to get you to slow down and pay more attention to the quality of what you're submitting instead of rushing to do submissions as quickly as possible.
I'll reiterate what EZGames69 warned earlier: If you continue to submit runs that are noticeably sub-optimal, you'll put yourself at risk of being banned from submitting.
I'd encourage you to cancel this submission and once again re-evaluate it. Spend more time with it. Try different methods...even actions that may not initially seem faster can ultimately yield a better overall time as the above situation proves -- delaying the first scream and changing it's direction actually yields a faster time to moving onward.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
I have to disagree on Star tier.
While this run is rather well made, it's just not entertaining enough to warrant Stars, in my opinion. I wouldn't argue with Moon tier (as it seems to have good general entertainment response so far), but I definitely don't find it on-par with other star tier runs.
Frankly, I find the game itself rather awful and unentertaining to watch. I'd truly be surprised if post-publication ratings (after giving adequate time for them to accumulate) would warrant Star tier.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
SonicFan53 wrote:
OK, so, I wanna collaborate on a TAS of this game.
You'll be much more likely to find someone willing to collaborate with you (on any game - let alone this one) if you first prove you are capable of making a publishable (or at minimum, a relatively optimized) TAS on your own.
Otherwise--and this is somewhat based on your posts in other threads of the forum--it comes across that you're just wanting to split the glory from someone else's hard work.
Essentially, show us you're worthy of collaborating with.
Many of us have numerous projects we're working on (within and without the TAS community); and we either don't have the time or simply don't want to hold someone else's hand through the TASing process if they aren't going to be a beneficial collaborator.
I do not intend for this post to come across as rude, more just to-the-point.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
Here's an update utilizing the shortcut shown above.
Due to changes in RNG, doors and some weapon firing/movement patterns were not as cooperative and thus I did not quite make the 600 frame savings estimated.
This file is still 448 frames faster than the original submission.
If I didn't perfectly re-sync the inputs after the shortcut, it's possible I may have missed an occasional frame or two somewhere.
Hmm. I'd be amazed if it didn't. From a quick estimate just looking at location, I'd guess probably around a 600-800 frame savings over this submission.
When I originally tested jumping down from there, I died. And given that I don't lose any health before that point, I assumed that falling from there was an instant death situation. I didn't consider that the death resulted from starting the game with less than maximum health.
So to utilize that shortcut, I'd have to pick up some health prior to that point. But the extra time for the health pickup (approximately 40ish frames) would be much shorter than the detour around this shortcut that is used in this submission.
As this is rather close to the beginning of the game, much of the later stuff would likely desync requiring the remainder of the game to be essentially redone/resynced.
I'm willing to redo this run adding in the shortcut. Most of the run would otherwise be the same visually. So...should I cancel this submission....or have you put it on a delayed judgement until I can update the run?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
Radiant wrote:
What's with the screen after the boss that you killed the wrong monster?
I believe this is simply an intended joke by the devs.
mklip2001 wrote:
The rerecord tally only says 3, though? Has Bizhawk had rerecord bugs lately?
As this run was created over the course of multiple BizHawk releases including dev builds, the final .bk2 was created with a copy/paste of those final inputs. The actual rerecord count is unknown and I really have no way to estimate.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
nymx wrote:
Wow! To start off...Yes vote.
I was surprised by this. DrD2k9 with another fine submission. I wondered about some of the slow downs, but I finally figured them out to be "hold ups" from other actions on the screen...correct?
Most visual slowdowns are due to lag from explosions, delaying motion to not take death dealing damage, or motion alterations to make sure the target location on screen is reached. Even still, there are few slowdowns and constant motion is maintained as much as possible.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
In the newest release (2.3.3), the option to Clone inputs in TAStudio is broken.
In the below image, the left is what I was trying to clone. The right is what resulted.
This occurs with both keyboard shortcut (Control + Insert) and using the Edit/right-click menu.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
I hate to have to say this, but in a way I'm glad I get to.
This movie isn't max score.
ViGadeomes had some ideas that panned out and we are working on some improvements to this run that will increase the score. The resulting video will be longer in time, but will be a higher score.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
My $.02 regarding timing convention between end-of-input vs reaching some 'end-game' point in the game's code:
Having the metric for timing to be variable on a game-by-game basis makes much more sense than holding all submissions to either one or the other perspective. For some games, there could be equal value from both perspectives; just different methods of execution. My understanding is that this is how things currently are done on the site, if there's a consensus on the timing method used; otherwise shortest input is typically the default.
As Personman said, the accomplishment of a 5 minute TAS for a 2 hour run is pretty superhuman, even if it may not be as satisfying to watch as a run that got to the end-game in 30 minutes but required input the whole time.
I personally don't have a problem with 2 different Monopoly runs published. I can enjoy and be impressed by either variation for this game.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
Asnivor wrote:
DrD2k9 wrote:
For others who may be curious. I've already completed a TAS of this, but there's something wrong with ZX emulation in BizHawk that results in the game's music not playing...I'm delaying submission until this problem is solved (a bug report has already been submitted).
This should now be resolved in the master branch (dev build). With any luck the changes wont have caused any desyncs, but that all depends on whether the game is trying to read from the AY register on the same (some might say non-standard) port that it is trying to write to. This seems unlikely, but check for desyncs anyway.
Yep works great. No desyncs. I'll looking at submitting this once the next official release happens.
Both Spike and I attack the left two enemies first. I believe this yields a faster time due to death animation timing with the game only having to process 1 enemy on the 2nd scream...but that's speculation and I can't (currently) prove it.
Doing it this way requires walking right further before doing the first scream, hence the attack not happening until frame 1737.
I can't comment on the glider as I haven't tested that far (nor am I particularly interested in doing so).
Another question: I know you've at least tested one other character; but have you tested ALL the other characters to confirm that this is indeed the best character to use for the game?
TASing is not about just doing something fast and quickly submitting.
It requires doing something, then doing something else, then something else, then something else, and so on...until you've tested every possibility you can imagine to see which is actually fastest. It's a time-consuming process and not something that typically occurs in a short span of time. I'm not trying to discourage you...simply trying to get you to slow down and pay more attention to the quality of what you're submitting instead of rushing to do submissions as quickly as possible.
I'll reiterate what EZGames69 warned earlier: If you continue to submit runs that are noticeably sub-optimal, you'll put yourself at risk of being banned from submitting.
I'd encourage you to cancel this submission and once again re-evaluate it. Spend more time with it. Try different methods...even actions that may not initially seem faster can ultimately yield a better overall time as the above situation proves -- delaying the first scream and changing it's direction actually yields a faster time to moving onward.
then
This occurs with both keyboard shortcut (Control + Insert) and using the Edit/right-click menu.